Karnataka High Court
Sri.T. Mallappa vs State Of Karnataka on 4 December, 2024
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:49881-DB
WP No. 25146 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT PETITION NO. 25146 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI T. MALLAPPA,
S/O T. CHOWDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
OCC: RETD. KAS (SENIOR SCALE),
R/AT FLAT NO. 101, TOWER 3,
SALARPURIA SATTVA, ANUGRAHA
APARTMENT, 9TH CROSS ROAD,
NEAR SUMMANAHALLI SIGNAL,
CAUVERY NAGAR,
BENGALURU NORTH-560 075.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI HALASHETTI JAGADISH SIDRAMAPPA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
NANDINI R
Location: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
High Court of REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
Karnataka
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL
AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS,
2ND FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL,
THE OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL
ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E),
PARK HOUSE ROAD, OPP. TO KPSC,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:49881-DB
WP No. 25146 of 2023
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTILE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF IDNIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
KSAT, BENGALURU BENCH, IN A.No-1173/2023 WHICH IS
MARKED AS ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW A.No-
1173/2023 WHICH IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT) The petitioner-A retired Civil Servant, is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the State Administrative Tribunal's order dated 11.09.2023, whereby, his Application No.1173/2023 wherein he had sought for direction to pay the Stagnation Increment has been negatived.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argues that the grant of Stagnation Increment -3- NC: 2024:KHC:49881-DB WP No. 25146 of 2023 is governed by a Government Order dated 18.03.1996; that being the facilitative order, cannot be held against the very grant itself by unusual construction of its provisions; his client was given promotion way back in the year 2013 ie., post punishment. He also notifies us the recommendation of the AG Office vide letter dated 03.10.2016.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for official respondents vehemently resists the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order of the Tribunal and the reasons on which it has been constructed. She emphatically reads out Clause 3 of the Government Order relating to stagnation increment and says that whatever constraint would operate while considering the case of a Civil Servant for promotion would apply to the consideration for the grant of stagnation increment; the finding by the Tribunal has rightly held that the petitioner had been denied promotion on the ground that he was punished for delinquency by way of deduction -4- NC: 2024:KHC:49881-DB WP No. 25146 of 2023 from salary. So contending, she seeks dismissal of the petition.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
A. The grant of stagnation increment is governed by the Government Order dated 18.03.1996, wherein, Para No.3 reads as under:
"3. The grant of stagnation increment shall be subject to the following conditions:
(i) The Government servant should have satisfactory record of service and he is otherwise eligible for normal increments in the time scale of pay but for reaching the maximum of the scale.
(ii) The satisfactory nature of service for the purpose of stagnation increments shall be determined in the same manner as suitability for promotion is determined.
While determining the satisfactory nature of service, the fact that whether he has passed the departmental examinations, if any, prescribed to the next higher post need not be taken into account." -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:49881-DB WP No. 25146 of 2023 B. Sub-clause (ii) of Para 3 makes the constraints applicable promotion as being applicable to the grant of Stagnation Increment, is true. However, the petitioner has been promoted to the next cadre vide Notification dated 24.08.2013 and in that, his name figures at Sl.No.1. If that be so, we fail to understand how constraint of the kind would have come in the way of Government according stagnation increment to the petitioner who is in the evening of life, post retirement. Right to Increment, whichever it be has property character and therefore, will enjoy protection under Article 300A of the Constitution of India in the light of the expansive discussion one finds in K.T.PLANTATION PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA1. Once that right is created by the Governmental Instruments, which have statutory flavour, the exercise or right cannot be defeated de hors the provisions thereof. We repeat, once promotion having been granted post penalty order, the stagnation increment 1 AIR 2011 SC 3430 -6- NC: 2024:KHC:49881-DB WP No. 25146 of 2023 could not have been denied to the civil servant, for the stagnation period.
C. The reasoning of the Tribunal as appearing in para No.6 of the impugned order does not impress us since it runs counter to the subject Government Order relating to stagnation increment; Tribunal committed an error in not noticing 2013 promotion of the petitioner which would wipe out arguably the black spots in his Service Record.
D. The Government Letter dated 19.07.2016, had sought for opinion of the AG Office as to grantability of Stagnation Increment to the petitioner in the given circumstances. The same reads as under:
" ಷಯ: ೕ . ಮಲಪ , ೆ.ಎ.ಎ ( ಯ ೇ ) ಅ ಾ ಇವ ೆ ಸ ತ !ೇತನ ಬ$%ಗಳನು) ಮಂಜೂರು .ಾಡುವಂ0ೆ ೋ ರುವ ಬ ೆ1. 3ೕಲ4ಂಡ ಷಯ ೆ4 ಸಂಬಂ 5ದಂ0ೆ, ೕ . ಮಲಪ , ೆ.ಎ.ಎ ( ಯ ೆ ೕ ), ಜಂ :;ೇ<ಶಕರು (ಆಡ@ತ) ಪಶುಸಂ ೋಪAೆ ಮತು% ಪಶು!ೈದCDೕಯ Eೇ!ಾ ಇFಾGೆ, HೆಂಗಳIರು ಇವರ ಮನ ಯನು) ಇದJೊಂK ೆ ಲಗL%5;ೆ. ಅ ಾ ಯು ೋ ರುವಂ0ೆ ಸ ತ !ೇತನ ಬ$%ಗಳನು) ಪMೆಯಲು -7- NC: 2024:KHC:49881-DB WP No. 25146 of 2023 ಅಹ< ರು0ಾ%JೆOೕ ಎಂಬ ಬ ೆ1 .ಾ Lಯನು) :ೕಡುವಂ0ೆ ತಮPನು) ೋರಲು :;ೇ< ತAಾ ;ೆQೕAೆ."
The office of Principal Accountant General, Karnataka vide reply dated 03.10.2016 had favourably said as under:
Sub: Regarding stagnation increments in respect of Sri Mallappa T., KAS (Sr. Scale) Ref: DPAR/289/ASE/2016 dated 19.07.2016 With reference to the above subject, I am to state that Sri. Mallappa T., Rtd. KAS officer (DOR- 31.07.2016 has reached the maximum of the pay scale (15200-25650) on 01.11.2008 and hence is eligible for stagnation increments with effect from 01.11.2009, 0.11.2010 and 01.11.2011. Further on promotion to the KAS senior scale he has reached the maximum of the pay scale (40050-
56550) on 14.09.2013 and hence is eligible for stagnation increments with effect from 01.09.2014 and 01.09.2015. Necessary action may be taken to sanction stagnation increments in the above mentioned time scale of pay as per regulatory provisions and forward the same to this office. Any stagnation increment sanctioned in the Non- Gazetted cadre should also be kept in view." Even when the AG Office in so many words said about the grantability of the subject increment to the -8- NC: 2024:KHC:49881-DB WP No. 25146 of 2023 petitioner, the Government has not acted upon the same. It makes Government's case worse.
In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds; impugned order having been set at naught, a direction issues to respondent No.1 to sanction and grant the subject Stagnation Increment and pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks, failing which, the Government shall pay interest at the rate of 1% per mensem from the date the Increment was payable but not paid, till it is paid. The interest component may be recovered from the erring officials of the department.
Now, no costs.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(C M JOSHI) JUDGE NR/-
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22